ABDUL JABBAR vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 30.1.2002 in Complaint No. 412/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

THE relevant facts which are no longer in dispute stated in brief are that the complainant appellant owned a truck No. MP23D-6945. It was insured by the respondent insurer for the period from 2.9.2000 to 1.9.2001. THE said truck met with an accident on 9.2.2001 at Devri. Complainant appellant submitted form and intimated the respondent owner about the incident on 14.2.2001 and also submitted to him the claim form. THE Surveyor was appointed by the respondent insurer who estimated the loss as Rs. 40,028/-. THE respondent insurer treated the claim of the complainant as non-standard claim because the intimation of the incident was lodged with them belatedly. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 27,000/- was held payable by the respondent insurer to the complainant. However, by mistake, initially a cheque dated 30.3.2001 for Rs. 17,000/- was given to the complainant but later on a cheque dated 17.10.2001 for the balance of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the complainant towards settlement of the claim. Complainant/appellant felt aggrieved on account that his claim was treated as non-standard. He averred in the complaint that Rs. 39,000/- as estimated by the Surveyor towards damage to the vehicle should have been paid to him. The stand of the respondent insurer was that as the intimation of the accident was belated, spot survey could not be made and the complainant had thus breached condition No. 4 of the policy, which requires that the intimation of the incident would be given in writing immediately after the incident.

Learned District Forum accepted the stand of the respondent insurer as above found that there was no deficiency in service on its part in treating the claim of the complainant as non-standard and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

LEARNED Counsel for complainant/appellant submitted that the Surveyor assessed the damage as Rs. 40,028/- and the complainant/appellant was, therefore, entitled to get the damages as above. It was further submitted that the incident took place at a distant place at Devri on 9.2.2001 and the following dates i.e., 10th and 11th February being Saturday and Sunday, intimation thereof could not be lodged with the respondent insurer as the insurer''s office was closed on the said dates. He further submitted that he obtained the claim form and immediately lodged the intimation of the incident and submitted the claim form on 13.2.2001. LEARNED Counsel for complainant/appellant further submitted that the claim of the complainant could not be reduced by respondent as consent of the complainant/appellant was not obtained before reducing the claim as above. He relied upon the decision of National Commission in case of National Insurance Co. v. Rajasthan Tube Manufacturing Co. Ltd., III (1997) CPJ 125 (NC)=(1998) NCJ (NC). Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that intimation of the incident was belated by 6 days and was lodged on 14.2.2001. Therefore, respondent insurer was deprived of conducting inspection of the vehicle on the spot by the Surveyor. It was further submitted that there being a breach of condition No. 4 of the policy, the insurer was entitled to treat the claim as non-standard. It was, therefore, submitted that learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint.

AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and the impugned order, it appears from the material placed on record that the intimation of the incident was given by the complainant/appellant on 14.2.2001 as would be clear from the endorsement on the claim form as well as on the ackowledgement on the complainant''s intimation by the respondent. There is no explanation as to why the intimation could not be lodged on Monday i.e., on 12.2.2001. Thus, there was delay by the complainant in giving intimation about the incident to the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the spot survey could not be conducted on account of delay as above. Condition No. 4 of the policy clearly stipulates that the intimation of the incident would be given immediately thereafter. The said condition has been breached. In the case of Rajasthan Tube Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the complainant/appellant the facts are entirely different and in that case though the consent of the complainant was obtained for accepting the amount as estimated by the Surveyor but the amount actually paid by the insurer to the complainant was lesser. In that context the National Commission observed that before reducing the amount as the consent of the complainant was not obtained and the amount was reduced unilaterally. The fact situation in the present case is different. Hence, complainant/appellant cannot get any benefit on the strength of the aforesaid case. Accordingly we find that the respondent insurer justifiably treated the claim as non-standard. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurer in doing so. The finding as above of the learned District Forum is, therefore, justified and is affirmed.

IT appears that initially in the month of March, 2001 a cheque for Rs. 17,000/- was given to the complainant instead of Rs. 27,000/- which was payable to him. The balance of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid subsequently by cheque dated 16.10.2001 i.e., with a delay of 6 months. Learned Counsel for respondent insurer submitted that the delay as above was not deliberate but was due to inadvertence and caused on account of calculating mistake. In view of the submission, we consider it just and proper to direct that the respondent insurer shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) towards interest for the period of delay as above.

THEREFORE, this appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that respondent insurer shall pay to the complainant/appellant the sum of Rs. 500/- as above. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.